Battlefronts multiple, US strategically confused
By Ali Kakadezfuli
Iran Daily, Managing director
The history of the United States is a chronicle of warfare; scarcely can one find a major conflict in the world that does not have a direct or indirect connection to the US. One needs not thumb through history, though, as American militarism has been markedly conspicuous in the past two or three decades. However, a noteworthy aspect in all of the United States’ wars is that, while often the initiator, the country has rarely been the one to bring them to a conclusive end. The military campaigns to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, initially driven by the aspiration to shape an American Middle East, have not only failed in materializing that ambition but have also made the situation more challenging for the US.
Despite consistent criticism of the war policies of the country by most think tanks, especially American ones, and even by elites and policymakers in the US, it remains unclear why the US does not undergo a fundamental reassessment of its geopolitical stance. Perhaps, at best, these criticisms and rebukes resulted in an increased caution in initiating new wars; a caution demonstrated more in the form of “delaying the onset of wars” rather than “hesitation” in them.
While the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq wars have not been resolved and may still have repercussions, intervention in the Russia-Ukraine war has opened a new dossier for the US; a dossier that, rather than being an achievement, has now become a focal point for political disputes between the US government and Congress.
Page 2